A.C. No. 5359. March 10, 2014.

* the appropriate charges on the failure of complainant to remit the full

ERMELINDA LAD VDA. DE DOMINGUEZ, represented by her Attorney-in-
Fact, VICENTE A. PICHON, complainant, vs. ATTY. ARNULFO M. AGLERON,
SR., respondent.
 
MENDOZA, J.:
Complainant Ermelinda Lad Vda. De Dominguez (complainant) was the
widow of the late Felipe Domiguez who died in a vehicular accident in
Caraga, Davao Oriental, on October 18, 1995, involving a dump truck
owned by the Municipality of Caraga. Aggrieved, complainant decided to
file charges against the Municipality of Caraga and engaged the services
221of respondent Atty. Arnulfo M. Agleron, Sr. (Atty. Agleron). On
three (3) occasions, Atty. Agleron requested and received from
complainant the following amounts for the payment of filing fees and
sheriffs fees, to wit: (1) June 3, 1996 –P3,000.00; (2) June 7, 1996 –
P1,800.00; and September 2, 1996 – P5,250.00 or a total of P10,050.00.
After the lapse of four (4) years, however, no complaint was filed by Atty.
Agleron against the Municipality of Caraga.[1]
payment of the filing fee and pay the 30% of the attorney’s fee. Such
justification, however, is not a valid excuse that would exonerate him from
liability. As stated, every case that is entrusted to a lawyer deserves his full
attention whether he accepts this for a fee or free. Even assuming that
complainant had not remitted the full payment of the filing fee, he should
have found a Cariño v. De los Reyes, 414 Phil. 667; 362 SCRA 374 (2001),
citing Santiago v. Fojas, A.M. No. 4103, 248 SCRA 68.
223way to speak to his client and inform him about the insufficiency of the
filing fee so he could file the complaint. Atty. Agleron obviously lacked
professionalism in dealing with complainant and showed incompetence
when he failed to file the appropriate charges.
WHEREFORE, the resolution of the IBP Board of Governors is
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accordingly, respondent ATTY.
ARNULFO M. AGLERON, SR. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar wrongdoing will be dealt with more
severely.

WON respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
Yes.
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP Board of
Governors except as to the penalty imposed.
Atty. Agleron violated Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides that:
Rule 18.03—A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Once a lawyer takes up the cause of his client, he is duty bound to

serve his client with competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with
diligence, care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee
or for free.[6] He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed on him.[7]
In the present case, Atty. Agleron admitted his failure to file the
complaint against the Municipality of Caraga, Davao Oriental, despite the
fact that it was already prepared and signed. He attributed his non-filing of